Skip to main content
Glama

aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents

Read-only

Inspect authenticated context-write proposals from a worker request so a manager can review proposed memory or context changes before acting on them.

Instructions

MANAGER READ: inspect authenticated worker context-write proposals.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "request_id": "<request_id>"
    },
    "name": "aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intents"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
request_idYesId of the worker request whose authenticated context-write proposals to list.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.12.67
    • addedInput schema / properties / request_id / description
      Added value: +"Id of the worker request whose authenticated context-write proposals to list."
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description reinforces the read-only manager role while adding that proposals come from an authenticated worker. It does not add further behavioral details such as pagination, permissions, or what happens after inspection.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It communicates role and action immediately.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, the description is largely sufficient. The main missing context is how this inspection relates to the disposal sibling, but that gap is minor for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the sole request_id parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description uses a specific verb ("inspect") and resource ("authenticated worker context-write proposals"), so the tool's purpose is clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the related disposal sibling, which keeps it below a 5.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The phrase "MANAGER READ" implies a manager-side read context, but the description does not state when to use this tool versus alternatives such as aiworkhub_manager_context_write_intent_dispose. Usage is implied rather than explicitly guided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools